See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253204100

Bottom-Up versus Top-Down: The Plurality of

Explanation and Understanding in Physics
Article January 2009

CITATIONS

READS

77

1 author:
Dennis Dieks
Utrecht University
133 PUBLICATIONS 2,422 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dennis Dieks on 26 June 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

Bottom-Up versus Top-Down: The Plurality of

Explanation and Understanding in Physics
Dennis Dieks
History and Foundations of Science, Utrecht University
P.O. Box 80.010, NL 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands

1. Introduction
Physics is the paradigmatic example of a successful science. One of its great successes is that
it possesses an impressive track record of giving explanations of natural phenomena, by
which these phenomena are made understandable. This much is generally granted, but things
become less clear when one asks what these physical explanations exactly consist in.
Philosophers of science have proposed a variety of analyses of explanation (nomologicaldeductive, causal, unification, to mention but a few), and it is not immediately obvious which
of these proposals best captures physical practice.
The position defended in this article is that there is no unique answer to this question; that the
question is even ill-posed. Explanations and ways of achieving understanding are contextual
in physics, no less than in other disciplines. As a consequence there exists no uniquely best
explanatory scheme. Instead, there is a plurality of possible physical explanations and ways
of understanding physical processes, and it depends on the type of question that is asked and
on the aim and interests of the scientist that poses the question which one is the most
appropriate. In other words, what is the best explanation and the best strategy for achieving
understanding depends on contextual, pragmatic, factors. In the following I shall illustrate
this general point by focussing on a specific instance of the plurality that is involved: bottomup versus top-down approaches in fundamental physics. Let me start with some words about
the historical context in which this distinction was first explicitly introduced --- this will,
quite fittingly, help to make clear what its role and status are.
Shortly after the First World War, in 1919, Albert Einstein unexpectedly rose to world-wide
public fame. In 1916 the final version of his General Theory of Relativity had appeared,
which had secured his reputation in the academic world. Even during the war years
preparations had started in English university circles to test one of the most significant
predictions of this new theory, namely the bending of light by massive bodies. It is true that
also Newtons theory of gravitation predicts such an effect, if light is conceived as a stream
of particles attracted by gravity, but the numerical value of the deflection predicted by
Einstein was significantly different. In the case of star light bent by the sun General
Relativity yields a deflection about twice as big as the Newtonian value, which suggests the
possibility of a crucial experiment. So it happened that in 1919 two sun eclipse expeditions
were sent off from England in order to measure the actual magnitude of the light deflection.
The outcomes were presented at a special joint meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society
and the Royal Society of London on 6 November of the same year, where the majority of
those present considered the results to favour Einsteins theory most, although there was no
unanimity. The next day, 7 November 1919, however, the London Times carried an extensive
article about the meeting, with the headline REVOLUTION IN SCIENCE. NEW THEORY
1

OF THE UNIVERSE. This marked the beginning of Einsteins role as a public hero and
genius. The editors of the London Times invited Einstein to write a popular piece about his
new theory, a request he gladly agreed to, and on 28 November appeared his now-famous
article My Theory (Einstein, 1919; Einstein, 1954, 227).
Besides for its role as one of the milestones in the public perception of Einstein, this 1919
article has become known for the methodological considerations with which Einstein
prefaced his explanation of relativity theory. Here, Einstein made a distinction between two
ways of constructing theories and giving explanations in physics, one bottom-up and one
top-down. As he put it (Einstein, 1954, 228):
We can distinguish between various kinds of theories in physics. Most of them are
constructive. They attempt to build up a picture of the more complex phenomena out of the
materials of a relatively simple formal scheme from which they start out. Thus the kinetic
theory of gases seeks to reduce mechanical, thermal, and diffusional processes to movements
of molecules --- i.e., to build them up out of the hypothesis of molecular motion. When we
say that we have succeeded in understanding a group of natural processes, we invariably
mean that a constructive theory has been found which covers the processes in question.
Along with this most important class of theories there exists a second, which I will call
principle-theories. These employ the analytic, not the synthetic, method. The elements
which form their basis and starting point are not hypothetically constructed but empirically
discovered ones, general characteristics of natural processes, principles that give rise to
mathematically formulated criteria which the separate processes or the theoretical
representations of them have to satisfy. Thus the science of thermodynamics seeks by
analytical means to deduce necessary conditions, which separate events have to satisfy, from
the universally experienced fact that perpetual motion is impossible.
The advantages of the constructive theory are completeness, adaptability, and clearness,
those of the principle theory are logical perfection and security of the foundations.
The theory of relativity belongs to the latter class. In order to grasp its nature, one needs first
of all to become acquainted with the principles on which it is based.
Thus, constructive theories and explanations start from the basic constituents and elementary
processes that build up a phenomenon, like when we explain the pressure exerted by a gas
from the collisions of the gas molecules against the walls of the container. By contrast, a
principle-theory begins with postulating some general principle, suggested by experience.
Properties of individual processes are subsequently deduced from the requirement that these
processes should behave in accordance with what the general principle stipulates.
Einsteins introduction of this methodological dichotomy evidently served an immediate
purpose: he was facing the important task of explaining his own theory of relativity, which he
indeed had presented and developed starting from general principles. The latter is true both
for the special theory of relativity, published in 1905, and the general theory, published in
1916. In particular the special theory, on which I shall focus here, closely follows the
axiomatic-deductive model. It starts with two clearly stated principles (Lorentz et al., 1923,
37-38): 1. the relativity principle (the physical laws have the same form in all inertial frames
of reference) and 2. the light principle (the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the
emitting source). As it turns out, these two simple and general starting points suffice for the
prediction of many concrete physical phenomena, like time dilation and length contraction. A
striking and important point is, as we shall shortly see, that these predictions are possible
without going into any detail about how the clocks and rods exhibiting the dilations and
2

contractions are built up from atoms and molecules, and without any specific information
about how these elementary constituents interact. Everything follows from very general
considerations: the type of explanation is top-down.
In his 1919 London Times article Einstein is not very outspoken about the relation between
the two types of physical explanation that he had distinguished: he cites advantages on both
sides. If anything, he seems to favour the constructive approach, given his statement that
when we say that we have succeeded in understanding a group of natural processes, we
invariably mean that a constructive theory has been found which covers the processes in
question. But given the context, namely the purpose of making the theory of relativity
understood and acceptable to a general audience, and given that Einstein himself had
developed his theory from general principles, it is only natural that the constructive approach
is mentioned in the beginning of the 1919 London Times article but soon fades into the
background.
The theory of relativity soon acquired enormous fame and came to be considered as the
paradigm of modern physical thinking, on a par with or even surpassing Newtons
achievements. Given this course of events, it is understandable that both in circles of
physicists and of philosophers of science the idea has not infrequently taken root that at least
as far as relativity theory is concerned top-down, principle, explanations possess a privileged
status. Indeed, it is not difficult to find claims in the literature that bottom-up explanations of
typically relativistic effects like time dilation and length contraction are inappropriate or even
impossible (see section 3 for a sample of such claims).
Against this, I shall argue that quite generally both types of account --- bottom-up and topdown --- are viable. The typically relativistic dilations and contractions can surely be
understood in a constructive, bottom-up, fashion. This does not deny that the top-down
derivations that have become standard in the literature also possess explanatory value and
lead one to understand why these effects must exist according to relativity theory. The choice
between these different explanatory strategies has a pragmatic character and depends on
contextual factors. There is no clear-cut and general difference between the two types of
explanation with regard to their power to generate understanding, because the notion of
understanding is contextual in the same way explanation is.
As already mentioned, for concreteness I shall focus on the choice between bottom-up and
top-down explanations in special relativity. However, I think it will become clear from the
general line of argument that with respect to these possible explanatory options there is no
important relevant difference between relativity theory and other physical theories.
Moreover, bottom-up and top-down explanations are just two examples from a wider gamma
of possible explanation forms (cf. de Regt, 2006). Quite generally, physics is pluralistic as far
as explanations and ways of obtaining understanding are concerned.

2. Special Relativity as a Theory of Principle

In the very first sentence of his On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, the 1905 paper
in which he first formulates the special theory of relativity, Einstein (1905, 891; Stachel et
al., 1989, 276; Lorentz et al. 1923, 37) sets the tone for both his own article and for most of
the work on relativity that was to follow later: he draws attention to the fact that the hitherto
usual theoretical treatments of electrodynamic phenomena contain distinctions and
3

asymmetries that are absent from these phenomena themselves. This high-level abstraction
observation, about possible excess baggage in the form of theories, then motivates
Einsteins first postulate, the principle of relativity. As still formulated in the introduction of
the paper, this principle tells us that the laws of electrodynamics and optics, like the laws of
mechanics, hold good in their same standard form in all inertial frames of reference --- a little
bit later on in the article it becomes clear, however, that this is taken to be valid for all laws,
even for yet to be discovered non-electrodynamical and non-mechanical ones. To this
postulate Einstein immediately adds a second one that stipulates that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c, independent of the state of motion of
the emitting body. As Einstein promises us, still in the same introductory remarks, these two
postulates will suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the
electrodynamics of moving bodies.
Here we see the principle-theory approach in full swing: the starting point is the formulation
of very general requirements, suggested by empirical data (that no difference between inertial
frames can be detected as far as the form of applicable theoretical principles is concerned,
and that the velocity of light is always the same, had been suggested by several 19th-century
experiments performed precisely with the purpose of finding empirical counterparts to the
theoretical asymmetries mentioned by Einstein in the first sentence of his article --- it was the
failure of these experiments that provided positive empirical input for Einsteins postulates).
Einsteins two starting-points are very general in character, even to the point that one
wonders how they could lead to such concrete and specific predictions as changes in the
lengths of moving rods and retardations in the pace of moving clocks. But Einstein is able to
honour his promise and indeed deduces these effects from his axioms.
This remarkable feat is achieved by Einstein through his insistence that lengths and times are
not merely abstract concepts, but correspond to what is indicated by concrete measuring
instruments, rigid rods and clocks. At the end of the introductory section of his 1905 paper
Einstein famously declared: The theory to be developed is based on the kinematics of the
rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory have to do with the relationships between
rigid bodies (systems of co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Thus,
coordinates are identified with notches in rigid material axes, distance is what is measured by
rigid measuring rods, and time corresponds to what is indicated by the hands of synchronized
clocks. It certainly appears at first sight that a strong operationalist flavour emanates from
these statements, a theme that was soon picked up by logical positivists and operationalists
(see Reichenbach, 1949, and Bridgman, 1949) --- although it is not so clear whether Einstein
himself was here committed to an outspoken philosophical position (Dieks, 2008). For our
theme it is only important, however, to note that the two general postulates are supplemented
by Einstein with this concrete interpretation of spatial and temporal concepts in terms of rods
and clocks; and that this makes a connection possible with concrete physical phenomena. The
latter becomes evident when we realize that the relativity postulate now says that phenomena
measured in one inertial system (also referred to as inertial frame, a system of Cartesian axes
in inertial motion) with the help of rods and clocks resting in that system, can have an exact
counterpart in any other inertial system, in which phenomena are measured with rods and
clocks co-moving with that other system. The regularities found in the phenomena as judged
from within all these different frames must be the same. Likewise, the light postulate comes
to stipulate that in any inertial system the velocity of light assumes the value c if the distance
covered is measured with rods resting in the frame and time is determined with clocks resting
in it. These requirements can only be fulfilled if rods and clocks behave in a way that is
different from what is assumed in pre-relativistic physics. According to Newtons theory
4

good (in the sense of not deformed) measuring rods do not change their length when they are
given a velocity, and good clocks similarly keep ticking at the same pace. But it is easy to see
that this behaviour cannot be in accordance with Einsteins two postulates. Indeed, according
to Newtonian theory the speed of light must be c-v if measured with rods and clocks that rest
in a frame which itself is moving with speed v in the same direction as the light (assuming
that the speed of light is c in the original frame, with respect to which the new system with its
rods and clocks moves); and this would be in conflict with the light postulate.
As Einstein goes on to show in his article, the requirement that the two relativistic postulates
be always exactly fulfilled uniquely fixes what has to happen to moving rods and clocks: the
rods have to shrink, undergo Lorentz contraction; and the clocks must slow down, be affected
by time dilation. This is precisely the principle-theories procedure described by Einstein in
his 1919 London Times article: the postulates give rise to mathematically formulated criteria
which the separate processes or the theoretical representations of them have to satisfy.
Whatever the physical and chemical constitution of the rods and the clocks: if the two
postulates of special relativity are to be fulfilled moving rods have to be shorter and moving
clocks have to go slower.
3. The Physical Reality of the Relativistic Effects and the Status of Rods and Clocks
The axiomatic-deductive way in which the theory of relativity was introduced, together
with the very general nature of the axioms, have from the start given rise to questions
about the nature of the relativistic effects. Even if it is clear that the existence of
contractions and dilations can be logically derived from the postulates, does this also mean
that they represent physically real phenomena, real material changes in the rods and
clocks? It has repeatedly been suggested that this is not the case: that the changes have to
do more with the theoretical description given to the rods and clocks, or with the
conditions of observation, than with things happening in the bodies themselves; that in this
sense the effects are more apparent than real. Indeed, no connection with bottom-up
accounts in terms of molecules, and forces between them, is provided so that a
mechanical understanding of the effects is lacking in the derivation from the postulates.
Some authors have been misled by this, even to the extent of claiming that the relativistic
effects are more psychological than physical in character. Among early examples are the
famous American physicists Lewis and Tolman, who wrote in 1909 that in Einstein's
theory the distortion of a moving body is not a physical change in the body itself, but
is a scientific fiction; the changes in the units of space and time are in a certain sense
psychological. This they contrasted with older proposals by H.A. Lorentz according
to which there is a real distortion of the body caused by deforming forces (Lewis and
Tolman, 1909). In the same vein Laub (1910) commented on Lorentz's theory that in it
observed changes in a moving body are of an objective nature, implying that in
Einstein's theory the situation was different. Similarly, Von Ignatowski (1910) wrote:
measurements on a moving body yield only an apparent value. And the
mathematician Variak (1911) commented that the relativistic contraction is, so to
speak, only a psychological and not a physical fact.
These allegations did not remain unchallenged. Already in 1909 Ehrenfest intervened
with a thought experiment that showed how the relativistic contractions can give rise to
undoubtedly physical effects, like the explosion of a solid body. Ehrenfests paper (1909)
invites us to consider a solid material cylinder that is set into rotating motion around its
axis. As a result of the rotation, strains will arise in the material: the elements of the
5

cylinder will tend to undergo relativistic contraction into the direction of their rotational
motion but will remain undeformed in the directions perpendicular to their rotational
velocity. For the cylinder as a whole this leads to conflicting tendencies that may result in
the destruction of the cylinder if the velocity of rotation becomes great enough. There can
therefore be no doubt that causal processes, having to do with the forces between the atoms
and molecules, are involved in the contractions and dilations.
Also Einstein himself participated in the discussion with a reply to Variak's paper
(Einstein, 1911). Opposing the idea that the Lorentz contraction is subjective or an
artefact of conventions of measurement, he described a method for determining quite
objectively that moving ideal rods are shorter, even without the use of synchronized
clocks. Moreover, in a letter of 1919 to the philosopher Petzoldt Einstein commented on
Ehrenfestss thought experiment (Stachel, 1980, 7): It is well to remark that a rigid
circular disk at rest must break up if it is set into rotation, on account of the Lorentz
contraction of the tangential fibers and the non-contraction of the radial ones. Similarly,
a rigid disk in rotation (produced by casting) must explode as a consequence of the inverse
changes in length, if one attempts to put it at rest. In a preserved draft of a letter from
1951 (Stachel, 1980, 8), Einstein likewise pointed out that to obtain a rotating rigid disk
without relativistic strains and tensions, one would have to first melt a disk at rest, then put
the molten disk into rotation and finally solidify it while rotating.
Clearly then, the principle-theory approach should not lure us into the mistaken belief that
no bottom-up, causal stories about the relativistic effects are possible. In fact, at several
points in his career Einstein in retrospect gave vent to related reservations about his
original introduction of special relativity. An early example is in his lecture Geometry and
Experience (Einstein, 1954, 232; Geometrie und Erfahrung, Einstein, 1921), delivered not
long after the just-mentioned discussions about the physical reality of the contraction
effects. In Geometry and Experience Einstein states (1954, 236): The idea of the
measuring rod and the idea of the clock in the theory of relativity do not find their exact
correspondence in the real world. It is also clear that the solid body and the clock do not in
the conceptual edifice of physics play the part of irreducible elements, but that of
composite structures, which must not play any independent part in theoretical physics.
This is very relevant to our topic: as we have seen, Einsteins original derivation of the
contraction and dilation effects proceeded through the identification of distances and
periods with the indications given by ideal rods and clocks, without mentioning anything
about the causal processes going on in the interior of these devices. Nothing at all was said
about their atomic or molecular constitution and about the forces that keep them together,
and as we have seen this could easily create the false impression that no ordinary causal
processes are involved at all in the contractions and dilations. But in the quoted passage
Einstein emphasizes that rods and clocks are ordinary bodies with a microscopic structure
and therefore determined in their macroscopic features by what occurs at the microscopic
level.
In the same 1921 lecture Einstein continues (1934, 237): It is my conviction that in the
present stage of development of theoretical physics these concepts (i.e., rods and clocks; my
addition) must still be employed as independent concepts; for we are still far from possessing
such certain knowledge of the theoretical principles of atomic structure as to be able to
construct solid bodies and clocks theoretically from elementary concepts. Note how the last
part of this quote resonates with Einsteins description of the constructive method in his 1919
newspaper article! It is pretty clear that Einstein never thought that general principles about
6

rods and clocks should replace considerations about atomic constitution and causal
processes. The axiomatic approach was introduced as an alternative that was particularly
appropriate given the context of the situation Einstein was facing. This situation is that we
are accustomed to using rods and clocks for making space and time coordinates physically
concrete, but are not able to directly describe these devices in terms of their atomic and
molecular constitution; this makes it expedient to introduce them as independent concepts.
Moreover, we are interested in questions of a very general character, not pertaining to
particular bodies or particular causal processes. The axiomatic approach is able to explain
why the contractions and dilations must be there in a quite general way, whatever the details
of the underlying causal processes.
Einstein himself later characterised the top-down approach as a practical decision, made for
the time being. As soon as a direct causal characterisation via fundamental physical theory
becomes available, Einstein tells us, this treatment will have to replace the axioms-aboutrods-and-clocks account. We find this statement at various places in Einsteins writings.
Thus, at the end of his career he writes in his Autobiographical Notes (Schilpp, 1949, 59):
One is struck by the fact that the theory introduces two kinds of physical things, i.e., (1)
measuring rods and clocks, (2) all other things, e.g., the electromagnetic field, the material
point, etc. This, in a certain sense, is inconsistent; strictly speaking measuring rods and
clocks would have to be represented as solutions of the basic equations (as objects consisting
of moving atomic configurations), not, as it were, as theoretically self-sufficient entities. He
then immediately goes on to explain that the appeal to measuring rods and clocks should be
seen as a make-shift procedure for the time being, as long as no complete fundamental
bottom-up treatment of rods and clocks is available, with the obligation, however, of
eliminating it at a later stage of the theory.
In fact, Einstein seems overcautious here. He could have resorted to Hermann Minkowskis
work: in his famous 1908 address Minkowski already showed how special relativity can be
built up in terms of fundamental physical laws alone, without any appeal to rods and clocks
as independent entities.
4. The Principle-Approach Perfected: Minkowski
On 21 September 1908 Hermann Minkowski (1909; Lorentz et al., 1923, 73) delivered his
lecture Raum und Zeit1. The lecture has become famous, and the sentence from the
introductory statement, Henceforth space by itself and time by itself are doomed to fade
away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent
reality, has acquired proverbial status. Still, there are aspects to Minkowskis ideas that so
far have not received the attention they deserve (Dieks, 2008). I here shall focus on how
Minkowski is able to avoid an appeal to rods and clocks in his presentation of special
relativity.
The impression created by Minkowskis just-quoted winged words, namely that spacetime
is an entity existing independently of matter, should be treated with caution. Reading
Minkowskis paper rather suggests that his position was sympathetic to Leibnizean
relationism, and that he here was close to Einsteins sympathies --- although both authors
were not explicit about their philosophy of space and time, writing as they did on problems in
Many of the ideas can already be found in a lecture Minkowski gave a year earlier
(Minkowski, 1915).

physics rather than philosophy. How Minkowski viewed the ontological status of spacetime
becomes clear if we look at his discussion of how we can lay down spacetime coordinates.
Unlike Einstein, Minkowski did not engage in a discussion of rods and clocks in order to
define such coordinates; he suggested a very different procedure. This alternative procedure
has not been the subject of serious study in the philosophy of physics literature --- rather
surprisingly, for Minkowskis proposal implements a way of constructing the edifice of
special relativity in which only general features of fundamental physical laws play a role,
without the need of invoking macroscopic measuring instruments. In a nutshell, Minkowskis
suggestion is to do without any pre-given interpretation of coordinates in terms of distances
and clock settings, and to start with a theoretical account of elementary physical phenomena
in terms of completely arbitrarily chosen variables. The form of the regularities formulated
this way will most likely be extremely complicated, but by going to new independent
variables, that is, by performing mathematical coordinate transformations, one may simplify.
As the final result of this process of successive simplifications a preferred set of spacetime
coordinates will be found as that system of reference x, y, z, t, space and time, by means of
which these phenomena then present themselves in agreement with definite laws (Lorentz et
al., 1923, 79). As can be expected, the definite laws Minkowski explicitly refers to are
Maxwells equations of electrodynamics in their standard form. But later in his article he
assumes that all fundamental laws of nature, including those yet to be discovered and
responsible for the stability of matter, should exhibit the same symmetry properties as the
equations of electrodynamics. This boils down to executing Einsteins programme of doing
away with rods and clocks; in spite of the absence of complete knowledge of all laws and in
spite of a lack of detailed insight into how macroscopic measuring devices should be
described by fundamental theory --- as Minkowskis elegant mathematical treatment shows,
such knowledge is not necessary to fulfil, albeit in abstract form, Einsteins desideratum.
More in detail, Minkowski starts by introducing coordinates x, y, z, t as arbitrary address
labels of world-points; the manifold of all world-points is the world. These world-points
are not meant as abstract geometrical entities: Minkowski makes it immediately clear that the
coordinates should be seen as attributes of physical, even observable (wahrnehmbare)
things. As he puts it: Not to leave a yawning void anywhere, we will imagine that
everywhere and everywhen there is something perceptible. To avoid saying matter or
electricity I will use for this something the word substance (Lorentz et al., 1923, 76). The
use of the term observable here may seem strange: Minkowski can hardly be supposed to
require that miniscule portions of his substance, whatever its nature, should be accessible to
the unaided senses. But we should bear in mind that this is a science paper, not an exercise in
philosophy --- let alone an application of logical positivist ideas avant la lettre. Physicists are
wont to use the term observable as a way to denote properly physical things, with which it
is possible to enter into causal interaction. Minkowskis wahrnehmbar should be
interpreted accordingly, as simply denoting physical or material.
After this introduction of substantial points, Minkowski focuses on the career of one such
point, for which he coins the term worldline. He continues (Lorentz et al., 1923, 76): The
whole universe is seen to resolve itself into such worldlines, and I would like to state
immediately that in my opinion physical laws might find their most perfect expression as
reciprocal relations between these worldlines. Minkowskis idea that the laws of physics
represent relations between physical worldlines plays a central role in his subsequent
argument. Starting from the laws of physics, which thus express relations between worldlines
and consequently regularities in the behaviour of material systems, Minkowski starts his

spacetime analysis: as already explained, the usual inertial coordinates x, y, z, t are

determined as those coordinates in terms of which the laws take on their standard forms.
Thus, we have found a way to present special relativity that does not depend on the existence
of rigid rods and clocks. The theory is now given a more abstract rendering, in which only
the existence of fundamental physical laws is assumed. Einsteins relativity postulate now
becomes the requirement that the form of these laws be invariant under a certain group of
transformations (the Lorentz transformations). The operations in this group can be interpreted
as transitions from one inertial frame of reference to another --- the spirit of the invariance
requirement is therefore not different from that of Einsteins original relativity postulate.
With Minkowskis approach, however, special relativity attains a more fundamental form
than in Einsteins own presentation, because we no longer need rods, clocks and materially
realized inertial systems; in Minkowskis presentation special relativity deserves the
predicate principle theory more than ever. The overarching Principle now states the
invariance of all laws of nature under Lorentz transformations, and Einsteins derivations can
be repeated with greater generality in this new context. Again, the typically relativistic effects
can be derived without going into the specific details of the material processes that are
involved --- the invariance properties of the laws suffice for reaching the desired conclusions.
However, now that everything derives from the fundamental laws that govern the behaviour
of the elementary building blocks of physical objects and processes, the possibility of
thinking about bottom-up, causal accounts of these relativistic phenomena also starts to force
itself upon us, and the question of the relation between bottom-up and top-down becomes
more urgent.
5. Special Relativity as a Constructive Theory
In section 3 we have already laid down the groundwork for the argument of the present
section: the typically relativistic effects like length contraction and time dilation can give rise
to phenomena that one at least is inclined to describe in terms of microscopic causal
processes. In the case of the rotating and eventually exploding cylinder, for example, it is
natural to ask about the forces that are responsible, the amounts of energy that are involved,
and so on. Likewise, one may wonder about the detailed mechanisms that make rods shrink
when a velocity is imparted to them. Also in this latter case effects may arise like the
breaking of objects, which seem to cry out for causal explanation. A notorious example is
furnished by John Bells (1976; 1987, 67) two rockets problem in which two rockets
undergo equal accelerations, in such a way that their mutual distance remains the same. A
rope connecting the rockets will tend to Lorentz contract during the process, because it
acquires a velocity. As a consequence, the rope will become tighter and may eventually even
break when the velocity becomes high enough.
As Bell recounts, he experienced that many physicists are amazed when confronted with this
outcome of the thought experiment (not unlike the physicists we quoted in section 3). Bell
attributes their confusion to the top-down manner in which the theory of relativity is usually
taught, and pleads for a different approach in which the focus is shifted from top-down to
bottom-up, constructive and causal, accounts of relativistic phenomena. We will comment on
the relation between these two approaches in the next section; here, we merely want to
emphasize that such a constructive approach is indeed possible.
In section 3 we saw that Einstein himself already warned against the idea that macroscopic
bodies like rods and clocks are not susceptible to bottom-up analysis: these bodies evidently
9

consist of atoms and molecules, so that their behaviour should be determined by the laws that
govern these sub-microscopic constituents and their interactions. It was mentioned in passing
in section 3 that before the advent of relativity theory H.A. Lorentz had already developed a
theoretical scheme by means of which he tried to explain that moving bodies contract (even
before special relativity, the contraction idea had gained currency as a way of
accommodating the famous null experiments, like the Michelson-Morley experiment).
Lorentzs approach (e.g., Lorentz, 1904; Lorentz et al., 1923, 11) focused on the forces that
hold macroscopic bodies, like measuring rods, together. These forces change when the bodies
are set in motion, and this has the effect of changing the mutual distances between the atoms
and molecules. Lorentz was able to prove that this leads to the right macroscopic contraction
in the direction of motion (the same contraction we encounter in relativity theory) if it is
assumed that under motion all possible forces change in the same way as the electromagnetic
ones. This latter assumption anticipates Minkowskis requirement that all laws should be
invariant under Lorentz transformations, but still, the type of explanation here is clearly
causal and bottom-up. The account works by determining the equilibrium positions of the
atoms and molecules in the interatomic and intermolecular force fields, and by finding out
how these equilibria are altered when the forces change due to motion.
Exactly the same explanations can be given in relativity theory. If we know what the
fundamental building blocks of matter are, and know how the forces between them vary
when a system is set into motion, it becomes possible in principle to calculate how the
macroscopic features of these bodies will change when they start moving. Actually, it seems
pretty obvious that bottom-up explanations of this type are possible for everything that
happens according to relativity theory.
6. The Relation between Bottom-Up and Top-Down
Minkowskis approach makes it easy to confront and compare our two explanatory strategies.
In Minkowskis presentation of special relativity the basic ingredients are matter and
fundamental laws governing matter, and although Minkowskis own approach is rather topdown, these ingredients also set the stage for a Lorentz-like bottom-up account in terms of
atoms, molecules and the forces between them. Minkowskis scheme further contains the
general principle that all laws are invariant under Lorentz transformations. The way
Minkowski introduces his scheme, starting from concrete phenomena, investigating their
regularities and thus arriving at laws, and finally inquiring about the invariance properties of
these laws, might create the impression that this principle cannot be an independent
component of the theory: once the laws have been found, whether or not they are Lorentz
invariant is a matter of inspection and does not need independent stipulation. However, the
idea obviously is that it is part of relativity theory to suppose that also new laws that may be
found as a result of future research will possess these same invariance properties. Interpreted
in this way the principle can be considered an independent part of relativity theory, on whose
authority we are entitled to assume certain general properties of all physical processes, even
those processes whose specific features we do not yet know. Now, for the logic of the
relation between top-down and bottom-up it is a central point that these general features,
shared by all physical laws, are sufficient to show that all accounts, either bottom-up or topdown, will lead to the same essential aspects of the typically relativistic effects like length
contraction and time dilation.
The way this works may be sketched as follows. Take the example of length contraction.
Suppose we have a macroscopic body at rest in some inertial frame of reference. Whatever its
10

microscopic constitution and whatever the forces that hold it together, it must be the case that
the microscopic processes that are responsible for the macroscopic features of the body are
governed by Lorentz invariant laws. There will exist some kind of equilibrium configuration
(from a macroscopic viewpoint) of the atoms and molecules, and this configuration
determines the length of the body. From the Lorentz invariance of the laws responsible for
the equilibrium we now deduce that a body with the same composition but resting in another
inertial frame, therefore one that moves with velocity v with respect to our original frame,
possesses a corresponding equilibrium state. This second equilibrium state has a description
in terms of the internal Cartesian coordinates of the second inertial frame that is exactly the
same as the description given of the first equilibrium in terms of the coordinates of the first
frame. But we know the relations between the coordinates of the two frames: these are given
by the Lorentz transformations. This implies that the equilibrium length of the second,
moving, body is related to the length of the first body by the Lorentz contraction. For
example, if the first body exactly fills the space between the coordinates x = 0 and x = 1 , so
that it has length 1, its moving mirror image will exactly fit between x ' = 0 and x ' = 1 , in
which the primed coordinates belong to the moving frame. The Lorentz transformation
formulas now tell us that this coordinate difference 1 between the primed coordinates
(1 v

) between the unprimed coordinates

c2
(assuming that the velocity v is in the x direction). So as judged from the first frame the
length of the moving body is less than 1: it has the Lorentz contracted value.

corresponds to a coordinate difference

As will be clear from this sketch, the relativity principle does all the work in securing that the
right contraction and dilation factors will result. The microscopic details can be left out: by
omitting the references to sub-microscopic constituents and forces, and only mentioning the
macroscopic body itself, we would recover Einsteins original approach, the archetypical topdown type of account of a relativistic effect. Still, the just-sketched derivation itself is
essentially identical to the one proposed by Lorentz. Lorentz started from the microscopic
building blocks of bodies, analysed their equilibrium positions and went on to prove that if
there is one such equilibrium in a resting body, there must be corresponding equilibria in
moving bodies such that the resulting macroscopic lengths of these moving bodies relate to
the rest length via the Lorentz contraction. In this proof he had to assume that all laws change
in the same way in the transition from rest to motion as the laws of electrodynamics --- which
is equivalent to assuming that all laws are Lorentz invariant. So it turns out that both
Lorentzs constructive approach and Einsteins/Minkowskis principle approach use exactly
the same theoretical ingredients! To some extent, this puts the distinction between top-down
and bottom-up into perspective: there is no difference in the relevant theoretical machinery.
Is there any remaining difference, then, between the two approaches? There certainly is, but
the relation between the two ways of explaining relativistic effects is not one of mutual
exclusion or of right versus wrong (cf. de Regt, 2006). Both derivations use the same
physical theory, and both are clearly equally valid as far as logical deduction is concerned.
The difference between the two arguments is in the emphasis on one premise instead of
another, and in where the deduction starts. These differences correspond to differences in
exactly what one wishes to know, and from which point of view; in other words, the
difference is pragmatic: it relates to our desires and interests and not with an objective
context-independent superiority of one approach over the other.

11

Indeed, suppose we are considering a problem like that of Ehrenfests paradox or Bells
rockets, and ask ourselves at which point during the acceleration process, and where,
something will break. Or, more generally, think of the question of whether and when a rod
that is set in motion by an accelerating force will shrink. These are questions about the
dynamics of the contraction process, and in this context of dynamical questions a dynamical
bottom-up approach is obviously the right one. For example, to know whether an accelerated
rod will become Lorentz-contracted we have to investigate whether it will be able to reach a
state of internal equilibrium, and this depends on the interplay of internal and external forces
and on thermodynamic considerations. Knowledge of these relevant causal factors will make
it possible to determine the details of the deformation process; moreover, the resulting causal
bottom-up picture provides us with a clear insight into what happens and in this way
generates understanding. It was especially the latter point that motivated John Bell (1976) to
call for a drastic revision of the way relativity is taught: namely, to abandon the usual topdown approach initiated by Einstein and to revert to a Lorentz-like procedure in which one
starts with atoms and forces. Bell thought that this bottom-up method was the way par
excellence to obtain understanding of the relativistic effects (actually, Einsteins own 1919
remarks about the constructive method go into the same direction). However, we have
already seen that the top-down approach uses exactly the same theoretical elements, although
with different emphasis. This by itself already casts doubt on the notion that no explanation
and understanding could be achieved by the top-down method. Indeed, the more than
hundred years of history of special relativity have abundantly demonstrated that in certain
contexts physicists accept the original Einstein-like derivations of the relativistic effects as
real explanations and ways of acquiring genuine insight and understanding. The contexts in
question are different from the dynamical ones we mentioned a moment ago: they pertain to
the comparison of different inertial frames of reference, and bodies resting in them, without
asking anything about what happens when a body is transferred from a state of rest in one
frame to a state of rest in another. So the comparison is between bodies of which it is given
that they are moving uniformly with respect to each other in completely similar internal states
--- a stationary situation, to be contrasted with the earlier mentioned dynamic cases in
which accelerations played a role. In the stationary case it is illuminating, as we have already
seen in some detail, to concentrate on the general invariance properties of the laws of
physics. Lorentz invariance explains why rods that are each others exact counterparts in
different frames possess lengths that are related via a Lorentz transformation. The picture that
arises here has a simplicity and compactness that makes things understandable (see de Regt
and Dieks, 2005, for more on the relevance for understanding of the intuitive accessibility of
such theoretical pictures). The Lorentz contraction is here represented as the natural relation
between moving bodies, and as reflecting general spacetime symmetries. This is what has
become accepted as the orthodox understanding of relativistic effects, against which Bell
fulminated but which physical practice has demonstrated to be perfectly defensible in itself.

7. Conclusion
Since its introduction, the special theory of relativity has usually been regarded as a typical
principle theory, in which the direction of explanation is top-down. In accordance with this, it
is not uncommon to find statements in the literature to the effect that attempts at bottom-up,
causal, explanations are out of place in relativity. However, there have certainly been many
physicists, among whom the old masters Einstein, Minkowski, Ehrenfest and their likes who
never fell prey to this misunderstanding. The possibility of bottom-up strategies in relativity,
which we have stressed in this paper, is therefore not something new; but it is still worth
12

stressing in view of the continuing dominance of the top-down approach both in the teaching
of relativity and in philosophical accounts of the theory. John Bell (1976) was right in
resisting this dominant attitude by drawing attention to the possibility of bottom-up accounts.
From our point of view, however, he struck a spark but threw no light: he overshot the
mark by suggesting that the bottom-up approach is the understanding-providing one.
The issue has been receiving growing attention in the recent philosophy of physics literature,
especially after the publication of Harvey Browns (2005) book Physical Relativity, which
defends a position very similar to that of Bell. In the wake of Bells and Browns publications
a serious dispute has arisen among philosophers of physics about the correct way of
explaining relativistic effects. On the one hand there are those who defend the orthodox
viewpoint: these argue that it is the top-down approach that is appropriate, since only it fully
captures and reflects the general spacetime structure of the world according to special
relativity (see, e.g., Janssen, 1995, 2002; Balashov and Janssen, 2003). On the other hand
there are those who maintain that this top-down approach ignores the physical mechanisms
that are at work (e.g., Brown and Pooley, 2001, 2006; Brown, 2005), and therefore is unable
to provide us with genuine explanations and understanding.
What I have argued here is that this dispute derives from a misconception. There is no
uniquely best way of explaining the relativistic effects. The differences between the
explanations are differences in the use we make of one and the same theoretical scheme. They
relate to decisions about where to put the emphasis and where to begin and end the analysis;
and these decisions in turn are conditioned by what we are interested in. In other words, the
difference is one of pragmatics. Explanation and understanding are relative to questions we
ask and interests we have. Explanation and understanding, not only in relativity theory but
also in theoretical physics and even in theoretical science in general, are inherently
pluralistic.

References
Balashov, Y. and M. Janssen (2003), Presentism and relativity, British Journal
for the Philosophy of Science 54: 327346.
Bell, J.S. (1976), How to teach special relativity, Progress in Scientific Culture 1, No. 2,
reprinted in J.S. Bell (1987), Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 67-80.
Bridgman, P.W. (1949), Einsteins Theories and the Operational Point of View, in Schilpp
(1949), 333-355.
Brown, H. R. (2005), Physical relativity. Space-time structure from a dynamical perspective.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, H. R. and O. Pooley (2001), The origins of the spacetime metric: Bells Lorentzian
pedagogy and its significance in general relativity, in C. Callender and N. Huggett (eds.),
Physics meets philosophy at the Planck scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 256272.
Brown, H. R. and O. Pooley (2006), Minkowski space-time: A glorious nonentity, in D.
Dieks (ed.), The ontology of spacetime. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 67-92.
De Regt, H.W. (2006), Wesley Salmons Complementarity Thesis: Causalism and
Unificationism Reconciled?, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20: 129147.
13

De Regt, H.W., and D. Dieks (2005), A contextual approach to scientific understanding,

Synthese 144: 137-170.
Dieks, D. (1984), The reality of the Lorentz contraction, Zeitschrift fr allgemeine
Wissenschaftstheorie 15: 33-45.
Dieks, D. (1991), Physics and Geometry: the beginnings of relativity theory, in J. Kaczr
(ed.), EPS-8; Trends in Physics. Prague: Prometheus, 969-982.
Dieks, D. (2008), The Adolescence of Relativity: Einstein, Minkowski, and the Philosophy
of Space and Time, to appear in V. Petkov (ed.), Minkowski Centennial Volume.
Ehrenfest, P. (1909), Gleichfrmige Rotation starrer Krper und Relativittstheorie,
Physikalische Zeitschrift 10: 918.
Einstein, A. (1905), Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Krper, Annalen der Physik 17: 891921, reprinted in Stachel et al. (1989), 276-306. English translation, On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, in Lorentz et al. (1923), 37-65.
Einstein, A. (1911), Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon, Physikalische Zeitschrift 12: 509510.
Einstein, A. (1919), My theory, The London Times, November 28, 13. Reprinted as What
is the theory of relativity? in Einstein (1954), 227-232.
Einstein, A. (1921), Geometrie und Erfahrung. Berlin: Julius Springer. Translated as
Geometry and Experience in Einstein (1954), 232-246.
Einstein, A. (1954), Ideas and opinions. New York: Crown Publishers.
Janssen, M. (2002), Reconsidering a scientific revolution: the case of Lorentz versus
Einstein, Physics in Perspective 4: 421446.
Laub, J. (1910), ber die experimentellen Grundlagen des Relativittsprinzips, Jahrbuch
der Radioaktivitt und Elektronik 7: 405-463.
Lewis, G.N. and R.C. Tolman (1909), The Principle of Relativity, and Non-Newtonian
Mechanics, Philosophical Magazine 18: 510-523.
Lorentz, H. A. (1904), Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity
smaller than that of light, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, Section
of Sciences, Proceedings 6: 809831. Reprinted in Lorentz et al. (1923), 9-34.
Lorentz, H.A., A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, and H. Weyl (1923), The Principle of Relativity.
London: Methuen. First republished as a Dover edition in 1952, New York: Dover.
Minkowski, H. (1909), Raum und Zeit, Physikalische Zeitschrift 10: 104-111. Translated
as Space and Time in Lorentz et al. (1923), 73-91.
Minkowski, H. (1915), Das Relativittsprinzip, Vortrag gehalten 5 November 1907,
Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung 21: 372-381.
Reichenbach, H. (1949), The Philosophical Significance of the Theory of Relativity, in
Schilpp (1949), 287-313.
Schilpp, P.A., ed. (1949), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. LaSalle: Open Court.
Stachel, J. (1980), Einstein and the Rigidly Rotating Disk, in A. Held (ed.), General
Relativity and Gravitation: One Hundred Years after the Birth of Albert Einstein, Vol. 1.
New York: Plenum, 1-15.
Stachel, J., D.C. Cassidy, J. Renn, R. Schulmann, eds. (1989), The Collected Papers of Albert
Einstein, Volume 2. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Variak, V. (1911), Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon, Physikalische Zeitschrift 12: 169-170.
Von Ignatowski, W. (1910), Der starre Krper und das Relativittsprinzip, Annalen der
Physik 33: 607-630.

14

View publication stats